guildwarsfandomcom-20200222-history
User talk:Karlos
If you have questions or wish to discuss anything, please leave me a note here... (Object) article deletion Why were these deleted, or were they moved somewhere? There was no comment given. - Greven 18:42, 7 June 2006 (CDT) :Unnecessary. Those "objects" are just tablets/monuments with the story of Tahmu/Hai Jii/... so I put the info in Tahmu/Hai Jii/... etc. No information was lost. Did you know that? If yes, are you saying it was better to thave those aticles split up like that? --Karlos 19:36, 7 June 2006 (CDT) ::I hadn't seen the updated boss articles until now. I must have missed the movement of the information. It does look better there, honestly, but I (mis?)recalled objects which you could read as being seperate. - Greven 20:50, 7 June 2006 (CDT) Parked Why did you delete my artice "Parked"? It's not really a big deal, as I only created it because it was not listed under Slang & Terminology. But the information that was contained in my "Parked" article contained a bit more useful information than the present "Park" article. Also, I notice when checking the Category:Slang & Terminology, "Park" is not listed, while "Parked" is but is a dead link now. As I said, no big deal, but you might still want to include the information I included about how to utilize a parked character.--Xis10al 07:35, 8 June 2006 (CDT) :Was checking the history of Elite Mission and noticed the information I'm speaking of was created by you. I didn't mean to take credit for it, if it came across that way. I just think it's very useful information and should be included.--Xis10al 07:53, 8 June 2006 (CDT) ::I don't wanna forestall Karlos' answer. Let me just explain that per policy we keep all article titles on GuildWiki in the infinitive grammatical form. That's probably why Karlos dumped "parked". Off course, if you think that any important information from your (deleted) "parked" article is missing in park, then feel free to add it there. :) -- 07:57, 8 June 2006 (CDT) :::Looking further at the history of park, Karlos moved your article "parked" to "park" (for reason explained above). Then Foo removed some of the detailed instructions. I assume he did that because those instructions are already available in the articles ferry and Elite Mission, where they belong. -- 08:09, 8 June 2006 (CDT) ::::Hi, sorry, I had already gone off to sleep when you posted this. Pretty much what Tetris said. At first I moved it to "Park" automatically and without reading it because we keep verbs in the infinitive form. i.e. "Faction farm" not "Faction farming." This also makes it easier to conjugate the article name in different ways since moast of the time you can link to the article without using pipes. i.e. You can link to Park Parked Parking. ::::As for removing the points, again, as Tetris said, the information was already in other articles (regardless of who put it there). Now, my issue is that I don't like to repeat info in other articles. The steps for ferrying are valuable info but if they are placed in more than one article then, after a little while, they will be different as different users edit the same list differently. So, I just made a decision... Should the steps for ferrying through the guild hall be explained in Park, Ferry or Elite Mission. Since both Ferry and Park point to Elite Mission for details on how to ferry through the guild, I think no information is lost. --Karlos 18:59, 8 June 2006 (CDT) Amber Drops I was posting before without logging in, I was posting where i had found amber to drop from enemies, and after I posted I had typed something wrong, i went to correct it and my ip was banned, why was that? - Warcobra Edit: It also said (Blanking) when I did no such thing, I added on the very last line of the comment, I did not remove anything. :Can you give me the IP or the Article? --Karlos 20:03, 8 June 2006 (CDT) Warcobra: 71.125.152.54 | article name is Amber Chunk User:warcobra 13:52, 9 June 2006 (EST) I wasn't aware that the monsters needed to be added on. But I will do that, I am pretty sure it was a kurzick Warrior. And I was not able to grab a screenshot, I was just happy to have the amber at the time. Do you want me to add that on or just leave it be until I get more proof? warcobra 17:41, 9 June 2006 (EST) Flare For some reason, I found it funny to read "Rewritten to take out the horrific skill, Flare" in the E/any Fire Nuker change history. C'mon, Flare is wimpish, but is it really horrific?!? Those poor underdog skills of the world, beaten back again! --- Barek (talk • ) - 22:05, 8 June 2006 (CDT) :Read my notes in the talk page... It's not for that build. It's the biggest crime heavy nukers make. If you're a heavy nuker, then you're not worried about a single target (especially in a party of 8 with other people). You don't have to get in the kill yourself. On the flip side, it cuase the pathetic side-effect of teaching them a habit to "spam" Flare when they are waiting for their skills to recharge. The problem with that is that Flare costs 5 energy and gives back only 1 energy. i.e. you are losing energy while waiting for skill recharge. Just a really bad idea. --Karlos 22:11, 8 June 2006 (CDT) ::Sorry, didn't mean my comment to be taken so seriously. Like I said, I read the edit summary as humorous - calling it horrific just seemed to make me laugh for some odd reason. I agree, it's a heavilly abused skill - especially in earlier quests of Prophecies where it's possible to get away with it at least through Kryta, by which time the bad habit is hard for many to break out of using. If they really want to do damage while waiting for skills to recharge, in the long run Conjure Flame is marginally better; but personally I wouldn't bring either one. Better to learn energy management and timing rather than either of the spamming options. --- Barek (talk • ) - 22:23, 8 June 2006 (CDT) :::Agreed. :) I hate Flare because it makes so many nukers in the game so lousy. When I play Fire Nuker I never ask anyone for energy, I never stop the party for energy, I just pace myself. Then you see all those nuker pinging "My energy is 11 of 85" and you see them spamming Flare. :( --Karlos 22:25, 8 June 2006 (CDT) Games to Movies On your user page, you mentioned that you would like to see a number of games turned into movies. Well, one of my friends recently pointed me towards this entry in IMDb. I just thought I'd let you know. --Thervold 17:01, 9 June 2006 (CDT) moving pages You commented I would recommend people use the move tag if they wanna indicate the page's name itself is in question. Qhen I looked at the page nothing told me there was any discussion about the name. I admittedly did not check the talk page, but I think I had no reason to do that. in justifying your move. However, I have to strongly disagree with the procedure. Moving a page haphazardly without a solid reason is not a good idea. Sure, if there is a page nameing rule that the page is breaking move it. But if you think the page is mis-named as a matter of opinion YOU are responsable for adding a Move tag. The move talk on the article you moved was already concluded and the article was moved (and thus the move template was removed from the page). Then you came along and moved it, then turned around and blamed us for it. If you were following proper procedure you would have added a move tag yourself and reopened the discussion on the talk page. Please, dont try to pass the buck like that. Not that I mind what you moved the page to (and I dont think you should move it back) its just rude to blame us for something that squarely falls in your arena. --Draygo Korvan 11:28, 14 June 2006 (CDT) :I am not blaming you or anyone. You were upset that I moved the page "under the radar" and I wanted to let you know that I was not aware of any sonar emissions. I did nothing wrong to try and shift blame. How do you expect me to know there is a controversy about the name if there is no indication in the article. What you are saying now is that there was no controversy about the name and that the debate was resolved and the former name chosen. What I will say to you is that obviously that debate went wrong somewhere because everyone NOW thinks the name I moved it to makes more sense. Even though that name (or something similar to it) was proposed in your vote. I don't get that at all. :In general, if an article is clearly misnamed (in my own little view of the world), I will move it unless I see a move/delete tag. If the article is misnamed but attached to a large legacy, I will discuss it. If the article is moved by someone else and I think the old name was better, I will say it in the talk page. If the article was poorly moved to a new name, I will revert. This is the procedure I am following. Slapping a tag on everything that needs to be done slows everything done. Use move tags if the proposed move is not very certain. --Karlos 11:38, 14 June 2006 (CDT) ::I'm saying that it was previously moved, thus you should have commented on the talk page. If you checked the history, you would note that your move would be the second move in a period of 24 hours. --Draygo Korvan 11:42, 14 June 2006 (CDT) :::*sigh* I was unaware of the move or the discussion. Even though I watch the Recent Changes page very religiously, I just missed it. I don't know how. So, when I came across the page for the first time, I thought this is what it was named. I didn't see any tags implying any debate and didn't know it was recently moved. Had I known of either I would have left a comment in the talk page. This would fall into a "not so important move" and "a move that is being discussed" but I was unaware of this. --Karlos 11:48, 14 June 2006 (CDT) ::::Thats my point, how are we supposed to let you know that it was recently moved? What sort of tags should I leave on the page to tell you that the article was recently moved? Should I comment out the move tag? Would you even see that? I am not upset about the move, but I want to head off an issue that could be far more controversial in the future. --Draygo Korvan 11:52, 14 June 2006 (CDT) :::::My comment about putting a tag was because I thought you were complaining (with the radar comment) that I moved it while a debate was GOING ON. So, I was saying how was I supposed to know that. But what you are saying now is that after a decision was made, I came in and did my own thing. Well, that was becaus eI had no idea a debate was made. I do not just go change things that people vote on, I was unaware. --Karlos 11:55, 14 June 2006 (CDT) ::::::And I'm saying is that you shouldn't be advocating a double standard. Unless a page breaks the GW:ULC, is obviously mis-spelled, or breaks some other guildwiki policy - I dont think the page should be moved without discussion. In this case, you should have added a move tag yourself to the page, which would averted this thing entirely. Obviously Guildwiki lacks a policy on this matter. --Draygo Korvan 12:04, 14 June 2006 (CDT) :::::::I don't see a problem really, but I don't have energy for this. If you want to devise a Guildwiki article moving policy, by all means. I think it is overkill, I think 99% of the moves done are responsible and agreeable and I think we have better things to do. The "move" tag is a new invention to me. You'll notice I am old school and when I want to move an article I suggest that in the talk page. So, if the move tag has been adopted as a standard, that's news to me. --Karlos 12:08, 14 June 2006 (CDT) :I'm confused, you said: "I would recommend people use the move tag if they wanna indicate the page's name itself is in question. ''" and "''I admittedly did not check the talk page, but I think I had no reason to do that." and now you say "'' The "move" tag is a new invention to me. You'll notice I am old school and when I want to move an article I suggest that in the talk page.". Which is it?--Draygo Korvan 12:12, 14 June 2006 (CDT) ::What are you confused about? If people want to indicate the article name is disputed (at the time I thought you were saying it was), then they should certainly mark the article with some marker. In the second sentence, I am saying I personally don't really use it that much and when I want to suggest a move, I just put a note in the talk page. Do I need to explain to you the difference between "article name disputed" and "suggest a move"? --Karlos 12:17, 14 June 2006 (CDT) :::Nope still confused, because I still see the double standard. My guideline on when an action would be deemed acceptable or not is simple: If an anon user can do it, and no one would revert it or question it, then it is fine to do it autonomously. Otherwise, because guildwiki is a community project, the community should get a chance talk about it. I am also confused in your reasoning here. In the discussion here I understand that: ::: If you have a dispute with the word please in the article name, by your admission here you should post it in the talk page. However in the talk page of the article you moved, you said you did not feel like you needed to view the talk page. --Draygo Korvan 12:31, 14 June 2006 (CDT) ::::Weeee. Let's keep going in circles: I moved it because I thought it was a straight forward move and I thought no one would object to it. Guess what? Turns out I was right. Now, my point about the move tag is, if the contributor feels the move is questionable or knows there is a debate about the name, then they should just put a tag and talk about it. My personal tendency is to just talk about it. ::::Also: I categorically disagree with your assessment that the standard of what a seasoned contributor to the wiki can do (let alone an admin) is the same as that of an anonymous user. That's not even true on Wikipedia. The good old "Be Bold" rule says I don't have to timidly ask before any change I want to make. ::::Again: The whole thing is a misunderstanding. I did not know there was any debate on the name and had I known you can be sure I would have posted a request on the talk page. --Karlos 19:19, 14 June 2006 (CDT) For your consideration Don't know if you're at all interested in this, but I'd appreciate your feed back here about this. --Rainith 00:42, 15 June 2006 (CDT) Congratulations! You have just broken GW:1RV. — Stabber ✍ 20:44, 15 June 2006 (CDT) :Heh heh, I was going to post "fight, fight, fight" on the talk page when Stabber first reverted but decided that I'm slightly more mature than that (not much more mind you). Maybe I should have :D I'm not sure if I should treating this more seriously but hey, low wikistress means I'm seeing the humous side at this point. --Xasxas256 20:50, 15 June 2006 (CDT) ::You can't RV an edit of a fellow contributer who has been around for a reasonably good amount of time and NOT explain it and expect me as an admin to hold it. So, three things happened here: ::#Karlos, the contributor, made an edit. ::#Stabber, the fellow contributor, RVed and didn't explain why (heh, I recall the heated debate that admins should not be able to revert without explaining, yet, y'all seem fine with doing ityourselves). ::#Karlos, the Admin, saw that and was like: What the...? And so, Karlos the Admin, viewed the edit in quesiton, saw that the edit made sense and the RV didn't, RVed Stabber's unexplained (and against policy) RV, and asked Stabber to explain or not RV. ::Now, explain yourself on the talk page there. --Karlos 20:55, 15 June 2006 (CDT) The update revert war Karlos, I'm sure you're aware that I am not one to beat around the bush, so I am going to say straight up what is on my mind: The revert-war on the update article was ''extremely poor judgement on your part, in direct violation of a policy that it is your responsibility as an admin to form and uphold, especially by setting a good example. For a user, that might be acceptable and even excused. But for an admin, who has been shown the trust and support of the entire community, that is simply not good enough. On a side note, I agree with your reason for doing the revert and I understand (although don't agree with) your tendency to value long-time contributors much more highly on conflicts than new users. And I encourage you to seek to have both of those opinions formed into policy through discussion. However, currently, they are not. And as such, in my mind, it is your responsibility to live up to the consensus and policies decided upon by the community, rather than your own interpretations of such. -- Bishop rap| ] 05:30, 16 June 2006 (CDT) :Since this is not between you and me, I kept the discussion where it started, on the update article's talk page. --Karlos 07:37, 16 June 2006 (CDT) Span frenzy Please block 64.12.116.X and 64.12.117.X. -- 04:21, 17 June 2006 (CDT) :I blocked 64.12.116.0 and 64.12.117.0, hopefully that will block the whole IP range. If it doesn't work this way, somebody please tell me how to block IP ranges. :) --[[User:Eightyfour-onesevenfive|'84-175']] (talk) 04:27, 17 June 2006 (CDT) ::It didn't work. :( No idea how to do t though. -- 04:28, 17 June 2006 (CDT) :::Hey, it's sorted, I've posted an explanation at GuildWiki_talk:Community_Portal#Blocking_Vandals. <LordBiro>/<Talk> 05:08, 17 June 2006 (CDT) ::::I don't think you should have blocked 152.163.100.9, Karlos. He has not, as far as I'm aware, carried out any vandalism. I can understand why you banned him, but I think you are jumping the gun slightly :) <LordBiro>/<Talk> 05:29, 17 June 2006 (CDT) Nar. Either he is or he isn't the guy. If he isn't then he has issues, blocking the range for a week is not that big of a deal. Butting heads with the wiki and thinking this is a game is serious business to me. --Karlos 05:32, 17 June 2006 (CDT) :I, too, take it seriously, but I'm not going to get drawn into a conflict with a 14 year old. If someone vandalises something then they get banned, this I can deal with. I don't have an issue with you banning 152.163.100.0/24, he is probably the vandal. My concern is that now there are ~765 IP addresses banned from the GuildWiki (64.12.116.*, 64.12.117.*, 152.163.100.*), 255 of which have the ban message "let's play". If you were a first time visitor to the GuildWiki and you recieved a ban message saying "let's play" would you come back? :I know that it's unlikely a genuine contributor will arrive from that IP address range, but I think we should be careful about this, that's all. <LordBiro>/<Talk> 05:40, 17 June 2006 (CDT) ::I see your point, However, for innocent by-standeers, the ban message does give them a way to contact admins if they get the message in error. --Karlos 06:01, 17 June 2006 (CDT) SoC check Next time you're in The Falls with your ele, could you see if you can find Hoss Rainswell and do an SoC check on him? I just saw him use both Healing Breeze and Ice Spikes. In fact looking at his page, it looks like there is only the one Monk skill listed, but he has a monk's blue aura. Weird. --Rainith 16:10, 17 June 2006 (CDT) :Hmm, I'll try and get around to it. I can run all the way to him if I have to. Problem is, I will have to kill him :). We did come across him in our Axe farming runs and he had a blue aura yet used Ice Spikes on us. We were all like, what the... --Karlos 16:19, 17 June 2006 (CDT) just stop reverting it... and let it be for a few hours... reversion hardly ever solves problems. - 21:11, 17 June 2006 (CDT) :Let me state this bluntly: Karlos needs to seriously consider resignation as an admin. His inability to think objectively or react calmly is undeniable at this point. This is his second revert war in... 3 days? Today's even began with him infringing on a user's namespace, which is in itself inexcusable. He also seems to favor excessive usage of blocking and banning -- see above comments on his blockage of entire IP ranges. Often, he uses those tools as an easy way to ensure that he gets "his way," again for example in the dispute today. To make things worse, in every single discussion I have seen him take part in, he has been arrogant, condescending and dismissive. Frequently, he claims that admins should be valued above other users, in direct contradiction of GuildWiki:Guiding principles: Admins are just users. This disrespect of others is perhaps the most compelling reason he should be removed from authority. :Karlos' contributions as a user have been many, and he has proven his value in that role. However, his actions as an admin have repeatedly demonstrated that either he does not understand the responsiblities, or worse, that he operates at his own whims in spite of them. His history as a positive member of the community is being overshadowed by his failure as a sysop. He should step down. :-- 66.92.33.187 22:45, 17 June 2006 (CDT) ::It's unfortunate you feel this way, however, if you wish to make a formal request for review of my actions/request for removal of my admin status, I think you should do it here: GuildWiki talk:Administrators or here User talk:Tanaric (though I believe Tanaric is away for now). ::I never said admin edits are more valuable than anyone else and I have never practiced this. I actually challenge you to find one instance where I said (or practiced) that. ::I have always believed that admins have more leverage and power in terms of administrative edits. No one should go into a revert war with an admin. That's preposterous. If an admin says: "Leave this article alone." Then that should be it. It's the same on wikipedia or any organization of any form. I have never limited people from diagreeing, never prevented them from saying "You know what, that policy of yours is a load of crap." And more importantly, once the disputed issue is discussed on talk pages, I will let the final decision stand be it my view that was favored or another view. ::The one thing I need to practice is to say things in a nicer way. But I actually take my administrative powers very seriously and choose to administer them very carefully. ::If you wish to discuss the specifics of that incident, please feel free to do so. --Karlos 23:37, 17 June 2006 (CDT) :::I know that many people here do not like the way Karlos acts. However I don't think he is using his admin powers and status wrongly. It might be true that he acts against some wiki policies sometimes, but nothing that he does has harmed the guildwiki. He always acts in the wikis best interest. I personally don't care about the policies as long as breaking them is not causing problems to the wiki. I think Karlos has never harmed the wiki in a legal or nonlegal manner. -- 04:29, 18 June 2006 (CDT) ::::I don't think Karlos has done anything wrong here, but I don't think this situation has been handled very well. I may not be in full possession of the facts. Could someone other than Karlos or DK (I'm looking in your direction Gem, but anyone will do) provide some sort of summary of exactly what has happened? I don't want to get involved in this without understanding the full argument. If you don't want to leave the summary here you can leave it on User_talk:LordBiro. Thanks. <LordBiro>/<Talk> 08:02, 18 June 2006 (CDT) :::::I'm not fully sure about anything anymore. I just logged in and saw the proof of Stabber and DK being the same person and I'm too schocked and confused at the moment. I'll try to sort it all out later, but I haven't seen any action made by Karlos which I would critisise. If someone else can provide LordBiro with a summary, please do so. -- 08:34, 18 June 2006 (CDT) ::::::The following is the rough organizations of events as I understood them: ::::::# It started with Deldda Kcarc going through some clean up stuff (including placing delete tags on many unused images, and appearantly some projects that Stabber started). ::::::# Then Karlos went to DK's talk page and had a talk regarding delete tags on Stabber-created pages. DK responded that he was merely cleaning up the namespace, and disagreement with any of the delete tags should be taken up in the respective article's talk page: The conversation. :::::::Karlos: Intention here was actually to protect Stabber work from what I '''thought' was an attemt by Deldda to get rid of some of her work now that he feels she is gone. The marking of List of skill anomalies as unused and abandoned (when its history is so full of recent edits and it was recently featured on Guru) was over the top.'' ::::::# Later DK essentially blanked that section (including Karlos, Gem, and part of his own comments), except the note saying to discuss deletions on their own pages. ::::::# Karlos created an article User:Deldda Kcarc/Track record which contains what was deleted. DK responded with a blank + delete tag, and the two of them reverted each other for a few times (plus some talking on the talk page). Karlos banned DK, and the revert war turned into Karlos vs multiple IPs that Karlos probably banned (didn't keep track of the ban record). :::::::Karlos: Actually there was not much of a revert war. I placed the deleted discussion in the sub-page with a note saying it should be kept somewhere even if he doesn't like it. He reverted, I said he should not do so again, and kept his delete tag (because he had every right to request deletion), he blanked the page again and I banned him for 2 hours so that he can cool it off. Much of the reversions afterwards were by anonymous IPs implying it was him. ::::::* At one point I deleted User:Deldda Kcarc/Track record, partly to stop a revert war that I find ridiculous, and partly because I don't think Karlos has a right to create articles under another user's namespace. Karlos later restored the deletion and moved it outside of DK's user namespace, to GuildWiki:Deleted/Deldda Kcarc talk (the history of this article includes the revert war before the article was moved; the talk page is also moved). :::::::Karlos: The deletion was a very strange move. 1) It was direct intervention without even dicussing the issue and 2) my issue of the thread not being lost was not even addressed. I felt it was very improper of an admin to just jump into the work of another admin without even as much as saying a word to him. In general, I believe PanSola's intervention, though well-intentioned, was poorly informed and poorly executed. Deleting the page in question in the middle of a dispute without talking to both sides will not solve anything. Discovering half way through an intervention that there was a ban in place for an hour does not help either. ::::::* At one point after DK got banned, anon IPs blanked and put delete tags on his user page and user talk page. Not realizing DK was banned at the moment, I reverted both pages with the reason that only the actual user should be the one blanking their user pages. KD's user page and user talk page then turned into a revert war between anon IPs (re-blanking + delete tags) and Karlos (who restored to my reverts). Additional bans on IPs might have been made by Karlos, and Karlos later protected both articles. :::::::Karlos: At that point, I was carrying out what I thought was PanSola's issue of preventing an anon from editing the article until the registered user comes to edit his own page. After a few bouts I just protected the page against anonymous edits. I did not know that PanSola did not know what was going on. :) ::::::* At one point after DK got banned, the GuildWiki:Community expectations was edited by anon IP with a rather bitter tone about admins powers. the bitter edit. This was reverted by Karlos without furthur incident. :::::: I might have missed a few stuff, and some descriptions might not be completely accurate, but this is as far as I can describe the main turn of events in the incident. - 09:23, 18 June 2006 (CDT) ::::(To Gem's post) I feel the harm he causes is indirect. I know that I, personally, become more reluctant to participate in a wiki every time a poor administrative decision is made. After all, what happens when it is one of my edits that is deemed "unworthy"? Conversely, of course, the volume and quality of constructive contributions to the site is encouraging to me -- but different people may not be as optimistic. Neither will many of them be as vocal; the more obvious solution is to just leave. A wiki's strength is its users, and so anything which deters newcomers should be a matter of grave concern. -- 66.92.33.187 21:21, 18 June 2006 (CDT) ::I challenge the concept of administrative edits -- what you consider as administrative edits are edits where, from my perspective, edits that are of equal level as other user edits, but which you think have more leverage and power. Any edits I have made in reverting or attemptting to moderate discussions since becoming an admin, I would've made them anyways even if I were just a regular user. Thus, from my perspective, your banning for the reason that the user in question reverted your "administrative edit" was uncalled for, and I disagree with its justification. - 04:45, 18 June 2006 (CDT) :::Then you and I have orthogonal views on this matter. You're saying that, let's say there is a revert war between two users, and you step in and say "Ok, stop" that if either of them RVs your edit you would just let it go? Say, ok, they have a right to edit my edits? :::The concept of an administrative edit is clear and is there. You may choose to say I will not exercise my power in this incident because it bring about more good, or for whatever reason. However, if you're saying that an Admin can be reverted on administrative requests (don't edit this page, don't revert, don't overwrite this image, ...) then you and I see the role and power of an admin quite differently. --Karlos 05:07, 18 June 2006 (CDT) ::::Indeed we do disagree and see things differently. If there is a revert war going on, and someone reverted a request of mine asking them to stop the revert war, I would treat it exactly the same manner as if another user (non admin) has stepped in to ask people to stop the revert war, and get reverted. Would that have resulted in a page protection or banning of the revert war participants, that depends on the circumstances. However, any random user, even an anon, stepping in and telling people to stop the revert war are, from my perspective, of the exact same level and value compared to an edit by me to tell people to stop the revert war. Any user, even anon, saying "don't revert / don't edit this page / don't overwrite this image / ..." do have, from my perspective, the exact same weight/value compared to an admin. It needs to be backed by sound reason/logic for other people to accept it. - 05:18, 18 June 2006 (CDT) :::::I look at this just as a police officer. A police officer does not have unlimited power, but there is still a basic assumption in the system that an officer uses his powers responsibly, and another assumption that for an officer to be effective, he needs to have some authority in the street. Therefore, if an officer tells you that you cannot go into a street at this time, you have to listen to him. Does not matter how much you like the street or how much you think it's your right to go into the street. If you even disagree with his reasoning, you need to listen to him. If you break his order, he has the right to arrest you. Resisting arrest in it-self (even if you are innocent) is a charge. All this power is not so that cops can push people around, but because in order for them to be able to resolve disputes they need to have this kind of authority. :::::Likewise, if an admin steps into a situation and says "Freeze!" then everyone should freeze. Anyone breaking that command risks to destabilize the whole situation. The admin should have the powerto neutralize that person. :::::Now of course, I know that it was Stabber, which actually changes a few things. Having just butted heads with Stabber a few days earlier, I would have actually let him/her have the final word and left a note on your talk page to intervene. I would not have banned Stabber two days after I had a run-in with her/him. In the end, placing the page in that user's space was not the right place. I guess that's what you get for having sockpuppets. --Karlos 05:33, 18 June 2006 (CDT) ::::::Again, all of Karlos' above comments confirm the fact that he does not believe himself subject to the same rules as everyone else. He also obligingly provides an example of his childishness in the last two lines, which read like: "OK, I was wrong... but it was his fault!" My initial concerns still stand. -- 66.92.33.187 21:21, 18 June 2006 (CDT) my comments on administrative edits Karlos, I think my comments on administrative edits should remain here, instead of being moved to Community talk. It was a direct response to what you wrote above, and has nothing to do with the discussion about demotion (though issues brought up there do intersect with here somewhat). - 08:20, 18 June 2006 (CDT) :Ok, move what you want here. I thought we were having the same discussion in two pages. --Karlos 10:04, 18 June 2006 (CDT) ::Well, I would've moved the entire paragraph you moved away back here. And then, to have things make sense, the follow up three paragraphs (including two of yours) would also be moved here too. Wanna check about that before I move. - 10:19, 18 June 2006 (CDT) :::I'd say copy it then (because Xasxas voiced his opinion there and he had the same concern). Copy the parts you deem relevant here and delete this part. --Karlos 10:23, 18 June 2006 (CDT) ::::Moved back here. Not sure about the deletion, so I just splitted a new section off. - 19:39, 18 June 2006 (CDT)